Disposed

Thankamma Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2014WP(C)/26735/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this discharge order, the Court directed the petitioner to file an application with the Pollution Control Board and local authority to regularize the operation of a crusher unit. The Court maintained status quo pending merits-based decisions by those authorities within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file application before Pollution Control Board and local authority; proceedings to be finalized within one month.

Thankamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 26735 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

THANKAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 64 YEARS PROPRIETRIX, M/S. NADAKAL ENTERPRISES, SWARGAM ROAD PURAYAR, DESOM P.O., ALUVA - 683 103 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.RAJU JOSEPH BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.E.HARIDAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. SECRETARY CHENGAMANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHUVASSERY NEDUMBASSERY P.O., PIN - 683 585.

¶12

*ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

---------------------------------

¶14

*3. P.V. PRADEEP KUMAR

¶15

S/O LATE P.V. VASUDEVAN,

¶16

PULLARKAT HOUSE, PURAYAR DESOM (P.O), ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683 102.

¶17

*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.10.2014 IN IA 14422/14.

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 26735 of 2014 (N) -2-

¶20

*ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED

¶21

---------------------------------

¶22

*4. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DISTRICT OFFICE I GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 020.

¶23

*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 IN IA 14721/14.

¶24

R1 BY SE. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BOBBY JOHN PULICKAPARAMBIL R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.RAMAN ADDL R4 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, SC

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2014, ALONG WITH WPC. 28315/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

...3/-

¶28

WP(C).No. 26735 of 2014 (N)

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶31

EXT. P1 -	A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, PANCHAYATH IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P2 -	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, PANCHAYATH FOR PROFESSIONAL TAX AND ALSO FOR PERMIT FEE FOR RUNNING OF MACHINERY FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.
EXT. P3 -	A TRUE COPY OF THE 'CONSENT TO OPERATE RENEWAL' DATED 19.10.12 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P4 -	A COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 23.9.14 NUMBERED AS A9-4349/14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, CHENGAMANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P5 -	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED ON 25.9.14 BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P6 -	COPY OF THE SECOND NOTICE DATED 18.10.2014 NUMBERED ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P7 -	COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED ON 20.10.2014 BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, CHENGAMANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P8 -	COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED FOR THE YEAR 2014-2015 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P9 -	COPY OF THE MONTHLY RETURN SUBMITTED FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2014 DATED 28.10.2014.
EXT. P10 -	COPY OF THE STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY BILLS UPTO 9/2014 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, ATHANI.
EXT. P11 -	COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 25.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P12 -	COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 28.10.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P13 -	COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION DATED 10.12.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶32

(Contd...)

¶33

WP(C).No. 26735 of 2014 (N)

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶35

EXT. R2 (A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY PANCHAYATH DATED 4-11-2014.

¶36

EXT. R4 (a) COPY OF THE CONPLAINT DATED 22.9.2014.

¶37

EXT. R4 (b) COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 28.9.2014. EXT. R4 (c) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.10.2014. EXT. R4 (d) COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUNLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 7.10.2014.

¶38

EXT. R4 (e) COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORD. EXT. R4 (f) COPY OF THE STOP MEMO/NOTICE DATED 18.10.2014. EXT. R4 (g) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.10.2014. EXT. R4 (h) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.10.2014. EXT. R4 (i) COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 28315/2014 DATED 31.10.2014.

¶39

EXT. R4 (j) COPY OF THE SHOW NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.11.2014.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶44

========================

¶45

W.P.(C). Nos. 26735 & 28315 of 2014

¶46

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 17th day of December, 2014

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

The issue involved in both these cases is with regard to the running of a 'Crusher Unit' by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 26735 of 2014. The operation was sought to be intercepted by the respondent Panchayath who issued a stop memo, which in turn is under challenge in the writ petition filed by the owner of the unit. In the course of proceedings, several other respondents came to be impeaded as additional respondents and the concerned respondents have filed counter affidavit as well. The petitioner has produced some additional documents along with I.A. No. 17078 of 2014 as Exts. P9 to P13.

¶49

When the matters came up for consideration before this Court on 15.10.2014, the following interim order came to be passed.

¶50

“Issue urgent notice to the 2^nd respondent by speed post returnable within 10 days. Learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

¶51

The operation of the crusher unit being run by

¶52

W.P.C. Nos.26735 & 28315 of 2014 -2-

¶53

the petitioner shall not be intercepted so long as the petitioner is having valid licence and consent to operate.

¶54

Status quo shall be maintained with regard to the construction, if any, in the premises till the next date of posting. The petitioner is required to implead the Pollution Control Board in the party array.”

¶55

Mr. Raju Joseph, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 26735 of 2014 submits that, in the course of proceedings, the Pollution Control Board has issued Ext.P11 stop memo on 25.10.2014, in response to which the petitioner has submitted Ext.P12 reply dated 28.10.2014 followed by Ext.P13 additional reply dated 10.12.2014. It is stated that, the petitioner is ready to comply with all the requirements in accordance with law and the prayer is to cause the matter to be considered by the Pollution Control Board, so as to enable the petitioner to rectify the defects, if any, and to approach the concerned local authority/Grama Panchayath for reviving the licence and to operate the Unit.

¶56

The prayers raised by the petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 28315 of 2014 are in the following terms:

¶57

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order, directing the

¶58

W.P.C. Nos.26735 & 28315 of 2014 -3-

¶59

respondents 2 and 3 to enforce Exhibits P4 and P6 stop memos and stop the illegal construction activities being carried out in the metal crusher unit owned by the 1^st respondent in ward No. 13 of the 2^nd respondent Panchayath under the name and style “Nadackal Enterprises.”

¶60

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 4^th respondent to enforce Exhibit P10 and stop the illegal construction activities being carried out in the metal crusher unit owned by the 1^st respondent in Ward No.13 of the 2^nd respondent Panchayath under the name and style “Nadackal Enterprises.”

¶61

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 5^th respondent to take immediate action on Ext.P8 representation filed by the petitioners and others.”

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioners in the said case

¶63

as well as the learned counsel appearing for the additional 4th respondent in the other case assert that the activities being pursued by the petitioner in the W.P.(C). No. 26735 of 2014 are much detrimental to the peaceful living in the locality because of the serious threat of pollution. It is in the said circumstance, that the matter was brought to the notice of the local authority who issued stop memo, finally leading to stoppage of the activities.

¶64

After hearing both the sides, this Court is of the firm

¶65

W.P.C. Nos.26735 & 28315 of 2014 -4-

¶66

view that, if there is violation of any provisions of law, terms of the licence, permit or such other sanction given by the concerned authorities, the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 26735 of 2014 is not entitled to operate. But, once the statutory or other requirements are complied with and necessary sanction is obtained from all corners, nobody can take the law into their hands to resist the operation.

¶67

In the said circumstance, the matter requires to be considered by the Pollution Control Board as well as the local authority. It is for the Pollution Control Board and the local authority to stipulate the terms for granting the sanction/licence within the legal parameters and subject to the nature of the operation concerned. In view of the limited extent of relief sought for by the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 26735 of 2014, he is set at liberty to file an application before the Pollution Control Board as well as the local authority, if she intends to effect any construction/operation in the property, to the extent the Pollution Control Board and the local authority are involved. The merit of the case shall be considered by passing appropriate orders in the application sought to be preferred by the petitioner, by the Pollution Control Board as well as the Panchayath after giving an

¶68

W.P.C. Nos.26735 & 28315 of 2014 -5-

¶69

opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the party respondents herein and the petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 28315 of 2014. Operation of the Unit can be pursued by the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 26735 of 2014, only on obtaining all the requisite consent/licence to be issued by the Pollution Control Board/ the local authority, depending upon the merits of the case. The proceedings as above shall be finalized at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the merits of the case. It is for the parties to agitate the matter before the concerned authorities in accordance with law.

¶70

The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the concerned writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶71

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶72

kp/-

Thankamma Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamma Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Chandran Pillai Vs State of Kerala and Others

Leela Jose Vs the District Collector and 2 Others

Preetha Vs the Authorised Officer, Repco Home Finance Ltd.

K.Ramesh Vs Unnikrishnan B.

K.Ramesh,Director of Income Tax Vs Jessy Thomas

P.V. Aleyas Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.